Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I got my file from Clearview AI

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 237 posts

Re: I got my file from Clearview AI

#221

Post by wideasleep1 »

RandallBrown wrote: post #197
wolco wrote: post #24

Is it me or did anyone find the availability of photos to be less than I would have expected. It is worrisome but a facebook could produce a lot more privacy related connections from private photos no one knows existed. I guess I was expecting that.. perhaps in the future facebook will offer this service.

Almost all of those photos were from the guys personal blog and one wasn't even him. I'd be way more worried if it was finding stuff like me in the background of someone else's photo in a crowded city or something like that.

To my knowledge, only 1 photo of me exists online (I've never even taken a selfie), in a concert crowd that showed up in our online newspaper. Feeling pretty secure about that.

Re: I got my file from Clearview AI

#222

Post by gowld »

njkleiner wrote: post #216
air7 wrote: post #202

The thorny issue here is that this is all public information put forth willingly by people. These are not leaked medical records. In a way these abilities are like a person saying "hmm isn't that the guy from that thing a while back?" What are the limits of what is allowed to do with public data? I don't have a clear opinion.

> These are not leaked medical records. In a way these abilities are like a person saying "hmm isn't that the guy from that thing a while back?" That's why I don't think there is much of a point in trying to prevent people (e.g. by law) from crawling and using data in this fashion. I feel like the only reasonable solution here would be to force these companies to rebuild their databases by legally limiting the lifeti…

Is you are going to play the "is it legal" game, then it's illegal bulk copyright violation. I gave Facebook a license to make copies of my data for use in its website. I didn't give Clearview a license to make copies to give out to it's customers.

Re: I got my file from Clearview AI

#223

Post by gowld »

dmix wrote: post #6
MikeAmelung wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy's name is Tom Smith. Go ahead and pop that into Google and let me know how that turns out. His name is about as generic as you could imagine for a white person. But they returned a bunch of images of HIM, and one Alexey Something-or-other, which could be his troll account. Edit: the Alexey part is a joke, I'm sorry but I thought it was funny.

TIL generic names (in your geographic region) are good ways to promote privacy. I always wondered how the Chinese authorities figured that out considering the massive name reuse in China. I can’t watch a Chinese movie or TV show without at least one character sharing the surname (the first part in China) of a Chinese person I know. Smith would be our classic version in the west.

China handles it by making you put your national id # or phone # on everything you do.

Re: I got my file from Clearview AI

#224

Post by gowld »

taneq wrote: post #44
samsquire wrote: post #4

Ideally we live in a society where not being anonymous is not such a big risk. But governments change, the data is still around to be abused. This is what disturbs me. Is how data can be abused in the future.

Yep. "I trust this entity with my data" is absolutely not an argument to be lax with your privacy. Take Pebble for example. They had a very invasive privacy policy and reserved the right to upload pretty much anything from your phone via the companion app, but they were a cool hacker-friendly hardware startup and a lot of people trusted them. Years down the track they ran out of runway (the ugly side of "unicorn or b…

Why were Pebble and Fitbit more trustworthy? Because they were "cool"?

Re: I got my file from Clearview AI

#225

Post by callalex »

LunaSea wrote: post #169
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about trust and permission. If I give e.g. a local news website permission to use my portrait, I do NOT implicitly give permission to Clearview, Google, Facebook, etc to use it for their own purposes. I mean it's implicitly known that anything you post on the internet is public property, but legally that is not the case. Portrait law (at least in my country). You can't just take someone's portrait and use it for…

Actually you do, because scraping is considered legal in the US and your information is on a public site which makes scraping the information legal.

Alright, I’ll go there. This is like claiming all German citizens were complicit with the Nazi movement, because it was legal.

Re: I got my file from Clearview AI

#226

Post by taneq »

gowld wrote: post #224
taneq wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. "I trust this entity with my data" is absolutely not an argument to be lax with your privacy. Take Pebble for example. They had a very invasive privacy policy and reserved the right to upload pretty much anything from your phone via the companion app, but they were a cool hacker-friendly hardware startup and a lot of people trusted them. Years down the track they ran out of runway (the ugly side of "unicorn or b…

Why were Pebble and Fitbit more trustworthy? Because they were "cool"?

Whether the really were or not is another question. Personally, I didn't trust them any more, but a lot of people did.

Re: I got my file from Clearview AI

#227

Post by tomerv »

ardy42 wrote: post #155
tomerv wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The governments are the customers of such products. We can't expect them to protect us.

> The governments are the customers of such products. We can't expect them to protect us. So you're saying we should just surrender to companies like Clearview AI? I don't agree with your fatalism. I think you're making a mistake in assuming that governments are unaccountable and cannot be prevented from pursuing interests that against those of the people. That's clearly not the case. If you were right, we'd already…

I suppose it depends on the definition of government. I was thinking of the executive branch (maybe I confused the terms). Parliament legislation would be the branch that has the responsibility to protect from such things.

Re: I got my file from Clearview AI

#228

Post by stordoff »

LunaSea wrote: post #169
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about trust and permission. If I give e.g. a local news website permission to use my portrait, I do NOT implicitly give permission to Clearview, Google, Facebook, etc to use it for their own purposes. I mean it's implicitly known that anything you post on the internet is public property, but legally that is not the case. Portrait law (at least in my country). You can't just take someone's portrait and use it for…

Actually you do, because scraping is considered legal in the US and your information is on a public site which makes scraping the information legal.

Legal _in the US_ is an interesting point. We often see the US trying to overreach and apply US standards when US-owned material is hosted on sites outside of the US (Richard O'Dwyer), or arguing that accessing a server in the US makes you subject to US law (Gary McKinnon). Why would similar arguments not apply here? It may be legal in the US, but that doesn't necessarily place the actions outside the jurisdiction of the other country. Naturally, _enforcement_ may be an issue, but that doesn't make it legal. At the very least, I don't see how it can be seen as OP giving permission - it's effectively another country taking that decision away from him.

Re: I got my file from Clearview AI

#230

Post by FabHK »

gowld wrote: post #224
taneq wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. "I trust this entity with my data" is absolutely not an argument to be lax with your privacy. Take Pebble for example. They had a very invasive privacy policy and reserved the right to upload pretty much anything from your phone via the companion app, but they were a cool hacker-friendly hardware startup and a lot of people trusted them. Years down the track they ran out of runway (the ugly side of "unicorn or b…

Why were Pebble and Fitbit more trustworthy? Because they were "cool"?

And because they had only one source of data, namely their watch/armband, and were not cross referencing it with search queries, YouTube views, etc. Unlike Google, needless to say.
Post reply on HN